Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

heretic88

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    458

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by heretic88

  1. heretic88
    Neither. Just a tank enthusiast
  2. heretic88
    Yes, we'll pay for this with 400 hours of overtime
  3. heretic88
    Add a V55, that makes insane torque at low rpm... I dont know if it would be possible to squeezed in...
  4. heretic88
    4th prototype? BTW, a while ago there were rumors that UVZ wants the prototypes back for restoration and eventually exhibition in their own museum. Is there any news about this? Would be good to save these tanks from rusting away.
  5. heretic88
    Well, not just T-72s... We had similar experiences with T-55s too. On the other hand, polish built T-34s were excellent, probably the best... We usually sent air defense stuff (ZSU-23-4, 2K12 Kub, 2K11 Krug, etc) for capital repair to poland, and the quality of maintenance works was always excellent. Strange that Bumar Labedy was an exception, when other polish manufacturing/maintenance plants were capable of first class work...
  6. heretic88
    Merry Christmas everyone! Regarding polish T-72 reliability... Was there any difference between domestic and export models? Just asking this because according to old hungarian tankists, there were problems with polish built tanks. One example, a hungarian colonel's memoirs: "A szovjet gyártmányú T-72-esekkel elmentünk több mint kétezer km-t, mire elkezdtek beégni a porlasztócsúcsok, 3-4 ezer km után pedig a turbófeltöltő csapágyai kibuktak a 25 ezres fordulattól. Utána elhasználódtak a bolygóműves kihajtás átömlő furatai, melyek a sok tengelykapcsolót meg egyebeket működtetik. Szóval összességében megbízhatóak voltak. Viszont a lengyel gyártmányú T-72-esek, melyekkel Tatán a negyedik zászlóaljam volt felszerelve, pocsék módon voltak szerelve, 50 kilométert sem mentek el, ha a gyári szerelőbrigád nem végzett rajtuk javítást." .... "Használtunk csehszlovák gyártmányú T-72-ket is. Végszerelésükben lényegesen jobbak voltak, mint a lengyelek, de gyengébb minőségűek, mint az eredeti szovjet. A csehszlovák kocsik ugyanis hibridek voltak - az előmelegítő román, az üzemanyagtartály magyar, a Gödöllői Gépgyárból, az optika keletnémet, Jena-Zeiss, a motor lengyel." Translation: Soviet built T-72s ran more than 2000km, when the injector heads began to seize, after 3-4 thousand kilometers the bearings of the turbocharger (obviously not turbo - my correction) began to fail due to 25.000 rpm. Later, the planetary transmission's (oil) outlets began to wear out, which controlled the clutches and other devices. All in all, they were reliable. On the other hand, the polish built T-72s, my 4th battalion on Tata was equipped with, were terribly badly built, they didnt even ran 50 kilometres unless the factory's mechanics didnt perform repairs on them. ... "We used czechslovak built T-72s too. They were remarkably better built than polish, but still weaker than the original soviet. Czechslovak tanks were hybrids - pre heater romanian, fuel tanks hungarian from Gödöllő Machine Factory, optics east german, Jena-Zeiss, engine polish."
  7. heretic88
    Some years ago, in a discussion with me he was desperately trying to prove that base M1 had around 550mm vs KE armor... When I asked him about his sources, he said something about his connections in US army he cannot reveal because OPSEC, and he will never talk about these informations openly... Since then I dont believe anything he says. Sorry for a bit derailing the discussion. As for the price of our new Leo-2A7+ tanks, I didnt hear anything exact lately in local media. The only info I have is from Hlopotov's blog, which says 565 million USD for the whole contract (including PzH 2000) http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2018/12/blog-post_88.html
  8. heretic88
    If Poland indeed buys M1, Damian will be the happiest man on earth!
  9. heretic88
    A pity that this tank didnt get to serial production. As for the cover, maybe laser warning receiver?
  10. heretic88
    Forgive my ignorance, but I do not know! I only heard about finns using PKT in their CV9030s.
  11. heretic88
    I wondered about something... Is it possible to fit PKT into a a Leopard-2, instead of MG3? It would make sense since in the hungarian army, 7.62x51 NATO ammunition isnt used at all, so from the logistics viewpoint, replacing MG3 with PKT would be desirable. I do not even think it is such a "heresy" , because finns use PKT in their CV9030s.
  12. heretic88
    Not just the slow manufacture of Oplots. I heard some rumors that there are serious quality problems with them too, and they are very unreliable. Except protection, VT-4 is better in every imaginable way.
  13. heretic88
    Well... Turkey! Not long ago, Erdogan visited us, and in the news it was announced that hungary will cooperate with turkey in some "military affairs"... No details unfortunately...
  14. heretic88
    This appeared in our local media, and isnt certain that it is true. But I really hope it is, because our T-72As are very old, and are in bad condition. (altough they should serve later as second line tanks). PzH 2000 would be even more of an improvement, because all we had currently is some D-20 towed guns, about 4-6 in working order. (the idiots retired the 2S1 and 2S3 back then, and retained the D-20...)
  15. heretic88
    Who needs that? You only need one or two strong guys Watch from 2:45...
  16. heretic88
    Not really. Being AESA doesnt automatically mean that the radar is suddenly immune to jamming. AESA means only that the radar array has multiple elements, each has a built in transmit/receive module. Alone this means nothing. The software does the job primarily. Against simple noise jamming, frequency hopping, and/or changing the frequency of certain T/R elements can be 100% effective. However barrage jamming can still easily deny range information. The only solution is triangulation, but for that, you need two radars (for example Buk SAM system uses this), which means two AFVs because APS radar coverage usually do not overlap. There are other factors too. For example the frequency range of the APS radar, the type of the jammer (a miniature DRFM jammer would be incredibly nasty, even without using barrage jamming!), the radar and the jamming signal power, etc. So it is not that easy.
  17. heretic88
    Well, in the article of the american Field Artillery journal they said that airbursts are quite devastating: "Aerial bursts of HE rounds with VT fuzes damaged or destroyed gun barrels, vision blocks, antennas, sights and engines and destroyed anything stored on the outside of the vehicle." That means lots of things to be uparmored. As for jamming, of course this is possible, but this can mean two things: 1, built-in jammer, which again results in mass/complexity/cost increase, and/or the need of a specialized vehicle just for this task, like the russian SPR-2.
  18. heretic88
    Well, it depends. If the radar is prepared to face jamming, there are definitely ECCM modes that can filter out jamming. Correct me if Im wrong, but I think APS radars are currently not prepared for dealing with jammers. Of course, this can be fixed by upgrading the hardware and software of the radars.
  19. heretic88
    What about airburst shells? Those are even more effective (at least for mission-kill), and harder to defend against. Also, in my opinion, we'll soon see the appearance of anti-APS jammers, which would easily render radar based APS useless. It is enough to know the radar's working frequency range, then range information can be easily denied using simple noise jamming. Its not impossible to install such equipment in an artillery shell, russians already have special radio jammer munitions for 152mm guns.
  20. heretic88
    That mortar is completely useless. Impossible to aim, impossible to reload in combat conditions. Even ancient WW2 german Nahverteidigungswaffe would be 1000% more useful. All in all, this "upgrade" is quite disappointing, looks like if somebody without any expertise with tanks would have thrown it together. I agree with Looser, the T-72B urban upgrade was far better than this.
  21. heretic88
    Looks like these are modernized versions, judging from the IR headlights. If they were in original 1944 condition, it would be a pain to keep these operational, especially because of the unreliable 4 speed transmission and the completely inadequate air filters... These were all changed in the 50s
  22. heretic88
    Concerning optics, this might be interesting: https://forums.lnlpublishing.com/threads/history-the-us-optics-crisis-in-1943.1945/
  23. heretic88
    As for BR-412D, I think the most reliable source is Отечественные бронированные машины 1945-1965 гг: http://ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut10/SuRuPzWg/SuRuPzWg051.htm
  24. heretic88
    Not really. But it looks like you didnt even check the WT report about the M-60 turret... Thickness gradually decrease from that measure point, as angle increases. Below the right lifting eye, it is still 154-160mm. On the left side, where angle is greater, it is 148mm. Also, about the mantlet, I quote from the article: "... I have contacted with USMC Museum (https://www.usmcmuseum.com) in order to get some information. I asked them, because they restored M60A1 tank two years ago... ... But also I received very important information from the Museum. “Gunshield is built in two parts, and welded together. The piece is solid, and there are no cavities within, with the exception of the holes for the cannon, co-axially mounted machine gun and the secondary gun sight.”
  25. heretic88
    There was a forum somewhere on which a collector showed the difference between different optics. Unfortunately, I cant find it anymore, it was long ago. But the result was the following. Best sight was the german one (I do not remember, but I think from a Pz.IV). Best picture clarity, sharpness, light transmission. Second was the soviet, which was just a little bit worse! (from a T-34/85) Behind these two was the american (it was from an M4), but the quality gap was substantial. Final two was the british and french, I do not remember in which order, but both were trash category.
×
×
  • Create New...